Achieving Sustainability, Innovation and Resilience ...bcceonetwork.ca/WP/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CEO-Network-Pos… · Achieving Sustainability, Innovation and Resilience Feedback

Achieving Sustainability, Innovation and Resilience

Feedback from Service Providers on CLBC’s Current Service Contracting Practices and the Impact on Service Outcomes

January 2016

This paper reviews three of the services currently offered through CLBC’s catalogue of services - Supported Living, Shared Living/Home Share and Employment Services - with the intention of offering the collective wisdom of service providers across BC who are actively involved in the delivery of these services. Our goal and the outcomes we have identified are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these services in achieving CLBC’s strategic directions of “enhancing participation and citizenship, increasing sustainability, and promoting innovation and resilience”(CLBC’s Strategic Plan 2012-16).

1 BC CEO NETWORK – Feedback from Service Providers on CLBC’s current service contracting practices for Supported Living, Shared Living and Employment Services, January 2016

Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2

About the CEO Network ......................................................................................................... 2

Project Background ................................................................................................................ 2

Overview of Findings .............................................................................................................. 2

First Things First – Ensuring Common Program Definitions ....................................................... 4

Supported Living .................................................................................................................... 4

Shared Living/Home Share ..................................................................................................... 4

Employment ........................................................................................................................... 4

Supported Living ........................................................................................................................ 5

Background ............................................................................................................................ 5

The Supported Living Model ................................................................................................... 6

CLBC Terminology .............................................................................................................. 6

Practice across the Province ............................................................................................... 6

Making it Work .................................................................................................................... 6

Building a Strong Service Delivery Model for Supported Living to Achieve CLBC’s Vision...... 7

Recommended Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 7

Supported Living Outcome #1 ................................................................................................ 8

Supported Living Outcome #2 ...............................................................................................12

Supported Living Outcome #3 ...............................................................................................13

Shared Living/Home Share .......................................................................................................15

Background ...........................................................................................................................15

Promoting the Long Term Stability of Shared Living as a Residential Option .........................16

Recommended Outcomes .....................................................................................................17

Shared Living/Homeshare Outcome #1 .................................................................................17

Shared Living/Home Share Outcome #2 ...............................................................................18

Shared Living/Home Share Outcome #3 ...............................................................................20

Employment ..............................................................................................................................22

Background ...........................................................................................................................22

Recommended Outcomes .....................................................................................................23

Employment Outcome #1 ......................................................................................................23




Summary and Next Steps .........................................................................................................28


Introduction

About the CEO Network

Since 2008, the BC CEO Network has provided a forum for leaders in community services agencies across BC to collaborate together to provide a collective voice on common concerns and issues, promote leadership and mutual support, promote effective and efficient business practices, and support our health and wellness as leaders. In addition to hosting regular general meetings and professional development days, we use a working group model focused on promising practices in our various sectors where members can explore themes and issues with the goal of developing collective solutions that can support best practice. We are pleased with the many resources we have developed including our most recent package of resources for agencies delivering Shared Living/Home Share Services.

Project Background In early spring, 2014, three working groups were formed each with the goal to focus on

a specific program offered through CLBC’s catalogue of services:

1. Supported Living2. Shared Living/Home Share3. Employment

These three service areas were identified by service providers across the sector as needing attention because of shared concerns related to current CLBC contracting practices and the resultant impact on service delivery and long term sustainability. Because these services are pivotal in CLBC’s vision of supporting individuals and families to achieve “good lives in welcoming communities”, the CEO Network felt it was important to bring the collective wisdom of service providers across BC forward in this position paper so that CLBC can incorporate this feedback into their roll out of their Strategic Plan.

We are excited to share the results of these working groups with CLBC and believe that many of the recommendations that have been made tie in well with, and can help forward the Goals and Action Steps identified in the January 2015 review and update CLBC’s Strategic Plan 2012-16.

Overview of Findings

Ensuring program sustainability was the highest priority arising from all three working groups who identified a number of outcomes and recommendations based on their work. Recognizing the value of each of these program areas in promoting good outcomes for individuals and families, they explored ways to enhance services and supports to increase efficiency and effectiveness overall. Their recommendations align nicely with 2 of the key arenas identified by CLBC to forward their strategic direction for Sustainability:

Increasing the cost effectiveness of service delivery; Improving the application of existing tools.


Cost Effectiveness of Service Delivery:

Improving Application of Existing Tools:

As noted in many of the recommendations of all 3 working groups, more strategic use of resources

was a common theme. Many examples show how the lack of effective resourcing at the program level has led to increased costs over the long term such as: a) high staff/provider turnover rates; b) limited capacity to respond to crises to avert problems that then lead to higher service costs; c) restricted capacity to do the community development work needed to develop resources and engage community, and d) lower skilled workers ill equipped to generate expected outcomes.

Similarly, the working groups identified

inconsistent and often ineffective practices across the province in relation to these services. Many examples here show how: a) mis-matched service decisions, b) variations in contracting processes, and c) the prioritization of some service models over others have led to inefficiencies and disparities that impact outcomes. We believe the recommendations we are putting forward in this document can help to address some of the ways that, together with CLBC, service providers from across the province can work together to increase service efficiency and effectiveness. This focus on sustainability can help to ensure more people are served more effectively and efficiently with the resultant outcome of truly living “good lives in welcoming communities”.


First Things First – Ensuring Common Program Definitions To ensure a common understanding as we review each program, we will use the definitions from the CLBC Catalogue of Services as presented on the CLBC website. http://www.communitylivingbc.ca/individuals-families/support-for-adults/types-of-support/

Supported Living

Supported living is a residential option that provides individuals living independently in the community with assistance in daily living. This service is available to individuals who own, lease, or rent their own homes. Supported Living services include outreach support and cluster living. Outreach support provides targeted hourly support to individuals through one-on-one or group arrangements. Within cluster living, an on-site contractor provides ongoing support to a group of individuals who have homes close to one another (typically within the same apartment building).

Shared Living/Home Share

Shared Living/Home Share is a residential option in which an adult with a developmental disability shares a home with someone who is contracted to provide ongoing support. The home is the primary residence of both the individual being supported and the person offering support. Shared Living/Home Share includes home sharing and live-in support. Within home sharing, the contractor controls the home through ownership, lease, or rental. Within live-in support, the individual controls the home.

Employment

This service uses a variety of methods to ensure that individuals achieve employment within an integrated setting. This option includes supported employment, customized employment, and / or self-employment options. Employment is a first priority for individuals served by CLBC.

http://www.communitylivingbc.ca/individuals-families/support-for-adults/types-of-support/


Supported Living

This section of our position paper was developed by the CEO Network – Supported Living Working Group - a community of practice formed to provide information, promote best practices and make recommendations to the BC CEO Network on system wide policy and high-level practice issues related to Supported Living. This working group was informed by data gathered through both a written survey and follow up forum with 20 different providers throughout BC in the spring of 2013. The results from the information gathered have been published in a document called: Exploring New Ways to Live in Community – a Conversation about Supported Independent Living.

Background

Supported Living is one of an array of housing options available in BC for individuals who have a developmental disability. Its focus aligns with and supports CLBC’s strategic directions to enhance participation and citizenship and to increase sustainability by supporting individuals to live independently in community with tailored supports. However, over recent years, with CLBC’s focus on Shared Living/Home Share as an alternative to group home services, little strategic attention has been given to the Supported Living model. Practitioners in the field are concerned that there has been unanticipated erosion to these services through this shift in priorities and the use of CLBC’s Funding Guide Template which does not adequately account for fluctuations in service demands experienced by persons served using this program. This erosion has led to concerns about this housing option’s viability as a reasonable long term choice for many individuals who might otherwise flourish in this housing model. It is the contention of the BC CEO Network that, without a more comprehensive infrastructure that

recognizes and promotes the value of this residential option,

supports the flexible nature of services,

ensures an adequate level of coordination to allow for effective and timely responses to changing and evolving needs and,

is resourced sufficiently to meet service demands, individuals who could successfully live in community with these supports will be forced to resort to higher levels of care with the resultant loss of control over their home and lifestyle and an increase in funding requirements. There is no debate about the value of this service delivery option for those who select it as an option. They are able to become, and remain, optimally independent. However, this program is often their sole support and, as such, the service must absolutely be able to be responsive based on need. In recent years, Supported Living is often the service of choice for younger adults transitioning from their family homes and the demand is likely to increase over the next years. The funding model needs to be strengthened to ensure that service delivery can meet the needs of those choosing this option. We are pleased that CLBC has identified this program area in their Strategic Plan with their action step to develop a plan to increase supported living options (p23) and urge them to consider our recommendations as they move forward with this plan so it can be a viable, successful, and cost effective service model for those choosing this option.


The Supported Living Model

CLBC Terminology The Supported Living model focuses on offering strategic and timely support to individuals who are living independently so that they can maintain their control over their home and their lifestyle. Supports are tailored to meet individual needs and are limited to only those required by the individual. According to CLBC’s draft catalogue of services, the term “supported independent living” refers to the provision of assistance with activities of daily living to people living independently in the community. It is available to people who own, lease, or rent their own homes. There are two main types of Supported Living: Outreach Support: Targeted hourly support provided to people through one-on-one or group arrangements. Cluster Living: Ongoing support provided on-site by the service provider to a group of people who have homes in close proximity to one another -typically within the same apartment building. (CLBC Draft Catalogue of Services 2010)

Practice across the Province Across the province, people use a wide variety of words and definitions to talk about these kinds of support arrangements. These include: cluster living, independent living and supported apartment living. The key concept is that people have their own home and receive supports that enable them to live their lives in their community. They do not live in a staffed residence like a group home and they do not have “providers” as such. These programs are diverse both in funding and model but often deal with similar support needs. Despite the often relatively minimal hours designated for each person, significant issues are addressed:

Health (medical appointments, addiction, sexuality);

Crisis response (major health issues, significant poverty, abuse, death of family);

Home and financial management (cooking, shopping, budgeting, bill paying, legal issues);

Housing (dealing with BC Housing, landlords, crises like floods or bedbugs);

Social and community life (social connections, advocacy, transportation, safety, accessing services);

Relationships (relationship support, parenting skills, personal safety, Internet safety);

Case management (coordinating other supports, negotiating the system, help with paperwork)

Safety (emergency preparedness, home safety, food safe, vulnerability)

Making it Work As documented in this report, shown in the surveys conducted in 2013, and captured in the

report of the forum on Supported Living, many people who choose to live in Supported Living

face occasional crisis or upheaval in their lives. Common circumstances include: medical,

financial, homelessness, mental health breakdown, etc. There is often no predictor for these

occurrences and otherwise people do well with the hours and support they receive. However,


when an urgent issue arises, time is of the essence and a quick response is required. It is

critical, therefore, to ensure an infrastructure that allows for a high level of responsiveness as

needed to ensure the success of each individual choosing this model.

Building a Strong Service Delivery Model for Supported Living to Achieve

CLBC’s Vision

Based on their extensive experience in service delivery, member agencies of the BC CEO Network believe that Supported Living is an important and successful residential option for supporting “good lives in welcoming communities”. As service providers we have supported many individuals to assume greater control over their lives using this model and want to be sure it remains as an actively supported and viable option offered to individuals with developmental disabilities in their personal planning with CLBC and other service providers. To ensure that Supported Living can be a viable housing option, we have identified some key outcomes:

Recommended Outcomes

•Contracts and funding formulas reflect the breadth, scope , and fluctuations of service needs so housing can be maintained

•Service providers have capacity to respond effectively to crisis situations, emerging needs, and changing circumstances

•Funders, agencies and community services work collaboratively to meet needs

Individuals choosing to live independently in community have adequate and timely

support to manage their ongoing needs as well as unexpected situations which might

jeopardize their capacity to live on their own.

• Resources and tools are available to support individuals, family members, and service providers i.e. subsidies, health services, transportation, adaptive equipment to address identified needs

•Service providers have capacity to provide support/advocacy to help individuals learn about and access these resources

Individuals have access to the resources they need to find appropriate, safe,

affordable housing/living options so they can consider living independently

•Consistent language is used to identify Supported Living within the catalogue of services and the corresponding Request for Service Lists

•Supported Living is consistently showcased along with other residential options using real life examples that help capture how this option can be viable for individuals with a range of needs and an appropriate array of supports

Supported Living is consistently known about and promoted as a viable, safe and

sustainable housing option among the array of options offered to individuals.

We believe that people need confidence in the system in order to willingly fade levels of support when goals have been achieved. This can happen when they feel confident they

can access support at times they need it and not wait until crisis hits. By providing comprehensive supports at the outset and building in programming capacity to ebb and flow support as needed, we can support individuals choosing to live independently and

their families more efficiently.


Supported Living Outcome #1

Individuals choosing to live independently in community have adequate and timely support to manage their ongoing needs as well as when unexpected situations arise which might jeopardize their capacity to live on their own.

1. We recommend that Supported Living programs be delivered using a hybrid model of global and direct/ individualized funding to ensure cost efficiencies and effectiveness of this model. Global funding can offer an important infrastructure to be responsive to the changing needs of persons served to ensure they can maintain their home. Problem Statement: CLBC has shifted from global program funding to individualized funding that provides small increments of support hours on a case-by-case basis to people living in outreach situations and who are in need of Supported Living supports. These hours do not allow flexibility, effectiveness and responsiveness to the true realities of 24/7 living for many individuals. With the erosion or loss of global funding, the capacity for agencies to step up and respond to emerging demands has been lost. We are now observing a pattern where individuals often need to reach crisis levels before needed support is made available at which point this residential option is often seen as no longer viable. The infusion of needed supports when issues first occur has proven successful in sustaining ongoing independent living arrangements. Rationale Statement: The committee has had significant discussions surrounding the importance of Global Contracting for Supported Living services. Supported Living is a combination of housing and support services provided to help people be independent, have choices, and take control of their own lives. It can provide flexible and individualized support for people and can be a viable alternative to Group Home or Shared Living/Home Share for people who desire to live in a home of their own Any Supported Living Program requires flexibility as a primary component to success. It must be flexible enough to manage movement between the high and low levels of supports so that staff can be available to provide scheduled support with clear goals and outcomes while also having capacity to respond to after-hours issues that need immediate attention such as an altercation with a landlord, a health issue, a household accident, problems with neighbours etc. In order for an organization to respond in a reasonable and appropriate manner – it must have the latitude, flexibility, and organizational foundation and structure to do so. Note: Although an argument may be made that individualized funding can be more flexible to respond to these demands, we have heard from many families that, in practice, their contracted staff are not as flexible as hoped because of the need to sustain multiple contracts in order to make a reasonable living. Supported Living programs have to manage multiple demands on a daily basis – including the changing schedules of persons served, unexpected situations needing immediate attention and new and emerging needs that requiring planning and advocacy, etc. Having an infrastructure that has a foundation of permanent full and part time employees allows greater capacity to provide responsive and timely services for more persons. Additionally, to be effective, make efficient use of staff time, and fade levels of support as appropriate, the


ebb and flow of a group of persons served support needs must constantly be evaluated, adjusted, and adapted. Global funding provides a secure funding base to meet these demands. Individualized contracts focussed on strategic goals can draw on supports from the global contract to address new and emerging needs and any immediate concerns that might jeopardize a living arrangement. The chart below shows the benefits that can be gained by drawing on elements of Global and Individualized Contracts to enhance the overall effectiveness, efficiencies, and value of services for Supported Living Programs:

Global Funding /Contracts Hybrid Model Individualized contracts

Provides flexible and individualized support for people and can be a viable alternative to Group Home or Shared Living/Home Share for people who desire to live in a home of their own

Provides flexibility for staff to respond to changes in people’s lives and needs.

Allows flexibility for services to span regular service and also respond to changing/emerging needs

Limited, targeted funding with minimal flexibility to respond to crisis or emerging needs

Allows sharing of hours to respond to crises. Planning can be short and long term.

Allows the sharing of hours to increase efficiencies and outputs

Hours (and reporting of hours) are only specific to the one individual’s contracted hours

Individuals are not tied to service hours they don’t want/ need at particular moments

Occurrence reporting minimized

Individuals are not tied to service hours they don’t want/ need at particular moments

Hours can be re-scheduled or routine rearranged to provide needed supports

Occurrence reporting minimized

If individual refuses services on their allotted times then they are not able to receive more supports to make up. “Don’t use them then you lose them”

Occurrence report may jeopardize ongoing support

Universal needs of all persons served in the program are being managed.

Universal needs of all persons served in the program are being managed.

Person- focused – the service is built around the individual.

Makes it possible to maintain a stable staff group with required skills. Staff get more hours consistently / work on a scheduled rotation.

Makes it possible to maintain a stable staff group with required skills. Staff get more hours consistently / work on a scheduled rotation.

Collective Agreement/Labour Law provisions of minimum call out can force all hours to 1 day and limit frequency of support

Service may be dependent on contractors, meaning less control, direction and sometimes skill level/Increased turnover

Hours are not portable when the person moves which helps to keep a strong program and quick access for a person on a waitlist

High proportion (or all) of individual hours are portable as long as the core supports for all persons served are delivered.

All hours are portable.

Less work administratively Less work administratively More work administratively.

Shorter wait times for service

Shorter wait times for service Longer wait times to hire, train, and orientate staff to individual

Access to service is totally dependent on funds being available to the individual

More individuals be served with less dollars

More individuals be served with less dollars


Global Funding /Contracts Hybrid Model Individualized contracts

Capacity for greater number of contacts for all individuals through enhanced hours available from the individual contracts.

2. We recommend that CLBC gather baseline data to determine the amount of additional time required for each hour of direct support so that the indirect supports are built into the Supported Living Funding Guide template. Problem Statement: Support for individuals living independently includes a mix of both direct and indirect hours. The model of direct service hours does not recognize or account for the significant offline work that is required to assist people to live healthy and safe lives. Rationale Statement: In the current model of Supported Living, individuals receive a limited number of hours allocated to specific tasks/goals. However support workers typically have a number of responsibilities outside of these direct hours that are not adequately funded including:

Documentation related to supports provided, goals worked on, medical appointments, incidents etc. this documentation is critical to supporting an effective review of service to inform planning and ongoing support levels so that service can focus on fading supports and/or adapting supports to address emerging needs or opportunities.

Support to find alternate living situation if needed to maintain independent living i.e. new rental situation.

Advocacy and follow up with other service providers such as Health Services for Community Living, Developmental Disabilities Mental Health Team, Family Doctors and Specialists etc.

Connections with community and family. Ongoing staff training including first aid, crisis intervention training, and person

specific training. Adherence to WorkSafe BC regulations and accreditation requirements.

Supervisors and staff must have enough time to plan and advocate for persons served to ensure that health needs are monitored and follow up is done, to seek and support community connections, to access generic resources and to ensure quality of life.

3. We recommend that the Supported Living Funding Guide Template be adjusted to better reflect the coordination levels needed to support program success as the 1:8 ratio is not sufficient. The Supported Living Working Group recommends that in order to sustain and promote this service, a review of the funding formula for supervision is conducted with CLBC. The funding formula must be based on factors that include recognition of the number of persons served, the number of staff required to provide that service (as opposed to straight FTE calculations) and the significant responsibility of the supervisor to be able to respond to the crises that arise as a routine part of this service


Problem Statement: The current Funding Guide Template (FGT) formula for supervision (8 FTEs = 1 Supervisor) does not meet the supervision needs in a Supported Living Service where the model of service delivery is vastly different from a group home upon which this formula is based. Rationale Statement: Supported Living Services typically support persons served based on their needs. The typical range for supports (based on a survey of 20 participating agencies) is between 2 and 6 hours weekly per person. While agencies may use somewhat different calculations for a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) (e.g. 37.5 hours/week versus 40 hours/week), calculations would still indicate that to meet the FGT ratio for a fully funded supervisor would equate to serving approximately 40 persons served (see following): 320 hours/week = 8 FTEs (using 40 hours/week as the FTE equivalent) 320 hours/week = 80 Persons’ Served (based on an average of 4 hours per person of weekly support) This formula is hugely variable since the average number of hours of support per person might be substantially different than the 4 hours used above. For example, if the average weekly hours of support per person were 6, the service would be supporting 53 persons served within the same 8 FTE count and if the average were 2, the same number of FTEs would be supporting 160 persons served. This would all have to occur within the same supervisory structure. Additionally, this type of service is responsive to the person’s needs and is designed around that belief. This means that while the actual hours of service in the contract might be 320 per week and equate to 8 FTE’s the strong likelihood is that this number of hours results in at least 12 staff (and typically more) to manage the scheduling issues routinely faced by this support model. In essence, this means that a Supervisor is responsible for all the routine reporting, planning and service delivery for a significant number of persons together with the scheduling, training and evaluation of a large number of employees. To add to this, this is a service where crisis response forms an integral part of the support. These are persons served who are living independently, have limited financial and emotional resources and rely on staff to routinely assist them with personal issues including illness/hospitalization. As noted above, the funding model needs to be strengthened to ensure that service delivery can meet the needs of the persons served choosing this option. Part of strengthening the model requires adequate and appropriate supervision.

4. We recommend that the Supported Living Funding Guide template be updated and applied consistently throughout all CLBC regions to ensure that the real costs of service delivery are compensated so that these programs operate in a safe and reasonable manner. Problem Statement: The current contract budget lines are not sufficient to cover the real overhead and administration costs of Supported Living nor are they consistently and fairly applied.



Individuals have access to the resources they need to find appropriate, safe, affordable housing/living options so they can consider living independently

Rationale Statement: Supported Living services by their very nature are based in community and require staff support to be moving about the community supporting several different people on their shifts. In addition to the time and mileage spent transitioning between various persons served, the support often involves providing transportation to stores, medical appointments and other necessary travel. Agencies must compensate staff for every kilometer they log (at the rate agreed to by collective bargaining for those that are unionized). Many of the agencies providing these services work in rural communities and the distance between locations can be significant. In addition, agencies are obligated to cover the upgrade in motor vehicle insurance for “business purposes”. Another common uncovered cost is cell phones. These are both practical and required given the remote and community based nature of the work, but also mandated through WorkSafe BC and accreditation standards. A small sampling within our network of similar Supported Living programs shows compensation for such items to be lacking consistency or logic. A few examples include: Rent/office $ 0.00 to 850.00 per month Mileage/insurance per employee $ 41.00 per to 300.00 per month Community access/recreation per employee from $ 0.00 to 133.00 per month To support crisis/emergency situations that require more concentrated supports that cannot fit within the regular budget, Supported Living FGTs should have an allowance for Contingency Funding. This funding would be flagged to use as required and billable as accessed for agreed upon occurrences (emergency medical support, damage to cars/property, bedbugs, evictions etc.). The compensation for these identified “real costs” of providing Supported Living is not consistently applied to service providers and there are no set standards to refer to. The existing administration budgets applied to contracts are already strained as they are stretched to meet the demands of technology, space, accreditation requirements, reporting, infrastructure, office supports, and training.

5. We recommend that there be an investment in the development of resources and of service provider capacity to help individuals and families find suitable options for independent living. Problem Statement Individuals, families, service providers and CLBC may rule out independent living as a viable choice because of barriers they believe cannot be addressed.

Rationale Statement If there is an increased array of subsidies, health services, transportation options, and adaptive equipment etc., and people are supported to access them, more individuals may


be inclined to consider living independently. Additionally if service providers have capacity to provide support/advocacy to help individuals learn about and access these resources and to help them find and secure their housing, families may be more confident that this option could be viable for their loved one.

6. We recommend that CLBC review the residential category assigned to Supported Living and reassign a new name. Further to that, persons served assigned to the funding priority list for this resource should be identified separately from the general residential list. Problem Statement: There exists some confusion among CLBC and service providers about the terms and category within the “catalogue of services” used to not only describe Supported Living, the funding associated with it, the way it is communicated (or not) to families/persons served and finally, the tracking of who is waitlisted/identified as requesting the service. Rationale Statement: We found within our working group, the 2013 survey and the forum that people use a variety of funding categories for Supported Living. To further complicate this, some of the aspects of successful Supported Living are not explicitly included in what the agencies are contracted to provide. For example, transition funding to support people moving from one type of service to another, weekend/after- hours support or front-end loading of support hours to enable someone to be successfully established in a new arrangement. Some agencies are responding by covering some costs themselves, or by creatively putting together funding from more than one funding source.

Residential Contracts have very different expectations and funding. Supported Living should have its own category to better define what is offered, designate appropriate funding, allow required flexibility and maintain a priority wait list (Request for Service list) that makes it easy to identify individuals wanting this service (currently they are added to the overall Residential funding priority list and hard to identify when vacancies occur).

7. We recommend that CLBC participate in a joint strategy with service providers to increase the awareness and knowledge of Supported Living services as an option among persons served, families and facilitators.

Problem Statement: There is a marked difference in the awareness and knowledge of the Supported Living service versus other popular choices among all stakeholders: persons served, families and facilitators.


Supported Living is consistently known about and promoted as a viable, safe and sustainable housing option among the array of options offered to individuals.


Rationale Statement: All people who are accessing services should be presented with all support options available to meet their respective needs, dreams, goals and options. It has been noted that while certain living support options are well known (Home Share, group homes), it is often the case that Supported Living is not offered as an option when it could have been a viable option. This has caused people to enter into a service stream that might not be optimal for their needs and capacities and might be more costly than needed. It is suggested that the strategy utilize opportunities to showcase the effectiveness of Supported Living services as a way to address the specific needs of individuals that might otherwise have been seen as outside the scope of supported living. This campaign needs to extend to the CLBC facilitators and families who are transitioning into adult services or changing an already provided service.


Shared Living/Home Share This section of our position paper was developed by the CEO Network – Shared Living/Home Share Working Group - a community of practice formed to provide information, promote best practices and make recommendations to the BC CEO Network on system wide policy and high-level practice issues related to Shared Living/Home Share. The committee was comprised of 22 service providers currently delivering Shared Living/Home Share services under contract with CLBC across the province. The working group was charged with documenting experiences across the sector in relation to Shared Living/Home Share services to identify key recommendations for maximizing the potential of this model in BC. The group was informed by several resource documents that speak to issues and successes in the development and delivery of Shared Living/Home Share service in BC. These documents included:

"Living a Good Life" - Quality of Life and Home Share, prepared for CLBC (Centre for

Inclusion and Citizenship, Dr. Rachelle Hole, Dr. Tim Stainton & Assunta Rosal, August 2015) CLBC Home Share Service Review (Hughson & Brown, Inc., October 2013)

Understanding Home and Shared Living: Provincial Roundtable on Home Sharing ~ Philosophy, Models and Practice (BCACL Executive Director’s Network-Kim Lyster, April 2012)

CEO Network Home Sharing Memorandum (Heenan Blaikie LLP, an Alberta Limited Liability

Partnership, October 2011)

Shared Living Rate Review Research Findings Report – prepared for CLBC (WRH

Consulting, October 2011)

Shared Living Rate Review Committee Recommendations (Joint committee of CLBC, CEO

Network and CLAN), February, 2012

Additionally, as part of their focus, the working group identified and worked to address some resource needs within the sector. They worked with professionals funded by the CEO Network to develop a number of resource materials that were shared with CEO Network members. These materials will help to improve and standardize Shared Living services across the Province, a key focus in the recommendations coming forward from this group and identified in this position paper. Resources produced and distributed to the CEO Network include:

Legal opinion on various issues related to Shared Living/Home Share (e.g. WCB, Employee vs. Contractor relationship, insurance, etc.).

Standardized legal contract between the Service Provider and Home Share provider

Standardized handbook/resource guide for Home Share providers.

Background

As part of its strategic direction to increase sustainability (CLBC Strategic Plan 2012-16, updated

January 2015), CLBC has focused on a number of key areas that have helped to place Shared Living/Home Share as a primary residential option for individuals they serve. The CEO Network applauds these efforts to expand options available to individuals so the focus is not exclusively on group homes. We are particularly pleased that CLBC has collaborated with the service sector, and specifically the CEO Network, to develop materials and processes that will lead to improved delivery of this model of service across the Province (e.g. Home Study training, Successful Practice in Home Sharing Guide). Many of the agency members of the CEO network offer shared living/home share within their residential options and see it as an effective model for many individuals who may have considered a group home as the only option to meet their


It is important to note that, in 2011 - 2012, the CEO Network participated in a joint committee with CLBC and the Community Living Agencies Network (CLAN) to review and recommend changes to the CLBC rate structure for shared living providers. After over a year of work gathering, compiling, and analyzing information, this committee known as, the Shared Living Rate Review Committee, came up with a series of recommendations. Many service providers contributed to these recommendations and were excited to be part of this planning. We have been very disappointed that a decision was made not to proceed with them. As you will see in the following pages, many of the issues that these recommendations were intended to address continue to have a significant impact on successful outcomes. We are keen to restart this dialogue in order to ensure that this residential option can be an effective, efficient, and more cost effective choice for many in the years to come.

needs. We have also had first-hand experience helping individuals to successfully transition to this model from group home settings. We know its value as a residential option.

Promoting the Long Term Stability of Shared Living as a Residential Option

As a model, Shared Living/Home Share, when appropriately resourced, and the match is suitable, offers a more individualized living environment than a group home, can lead to more independence and sense of autonomy for the individual. It also supports natural relationships with providers and extended family. The CEO Network has recently developed some resources to help member agencies who provide Shared Living/Home Share services deliver high quality supports through well supported and appropriately matched Shared Living/Home Share Providers. We see it as an important model for many individuals. However, despite the many successes, we have also seen some challenges in the application of this model that we believe need to be considered as CLBC works towards their goal of supporting “good lives in welcoming communities”. We have outlined key areas where we believe current practices have compromised the effectiveness of this model and its subsequent ability to deliver on this goal:

The current focus on Shared Living/Home Share above other models may give the model a less than appealing reputation for many families considering options for their loved ones.

Screening, assessment, and funding allocations that are inconsistent and often unsustainable can lead to placement breakdowns that negatively impact the individual and his sense of belonging as well as all others involved and lead to higher costs

Overall program resourcing that does not reflect the types and levels of support needed to sustain a good program and ensure quality standards can lead to burnout and loss of contractors willing to take on the role.

Inconsistently applied policies and program standards may leave some individuals choosing this option vulnerable and possibly unsafe in their placements.


Shared Living/Homeshare Outcome #1

Appropriate referrals to shared living are made


1. We recommend that CLBC revisit their emphasis on

shared living as the preferred residential model with the goal of developing a more comprehensive array of options. These might be variations on shared living that would allow more individuals to safely and comfortably enjoy “good lives in welcoming communities”.

Problem Statement CLBC continues to direct individuals to Shared Living/Home Share who don’t fit readily into the model. It is often the only option offered for a placement outside the family home or as the only alternative to a residential placement that is ending. This has led to many examples of unsuccessful placements that have undermined all parties. The individual who is placed and the provider may feel they have ‘failed’. They may then direct their upset toward agencies who feel frustrated with the efficacy of the model for the individual and blamed for making the placement.

•Options are discussed thoroughly before decision making

•When there are questions about suitability, more information is gathered so all involved can make an informed choice

•All information that needs to be factored into planning for an individual is shared fully before placement

Appropriate referrals to shared living are made

•Monthly payments to shared living providers reflect actual expectations, level of care, availability of other services, and the support needs of the family

• Rates can be increased or other resources provided if the service cannot be delivered adequately based on unaticipated needs

Funding for Shared Living reflects the variation in need and covers costs

adequately so placements are sustainable

• Agencies providing shared living are adequately compensated to cover the real costs of providing important supports and monitoring each provider

Shared Living Providers are supported effectively and monitored consistently

to ensure high quality shared living experiences.

“Home sharing is one option

that people may want to consider but should not be

the only option. Further, it is essential that any

consideration be based on sound planning,

preparation, and an effective transition process.”

"Living a Good Life" - Quality of Life and Home Share,

prepared for CLBC (Centre for

Inclusion and Citizenship, Dr. Rachelle Hole, Dr. Tim Stainton &

Assunta Rosal, August 2015)


Shared Living/Home Share Outcome #2

Funding for Shared Living reflects the variation in needs and covers costs adequately so placements are sustainable

Additionally, not all information about an individual may be provided to the agency developing the shared living supports. When discussing with agencies around BC, it became evident to this working group that there are inconsistencies across the province among the facilitators/analysts making referrals. Personal support plans do not capture all disability related needs and/or critical information about individuals who have criminal backgrounds or should not be placed in homes with children. Too often it seems that issues are skirted in order to validate a shared living placement. These omissions open the door to mismatches and unsuccessful placements with individuals who might have been better served in a different model for less overall cost. Rationale Statement It is important to recognize that shared living is not the answer for every individual despite perceived cost savings. Having “one model fit all” can be more costly overall both to the shared living program’s recruitment efforts and the housing development of individuals with more complex needs. If supported centrally by CLBC leadership, local facilitators and analysts could be encouraged to take the opportunity to work collaboratively with service providers to come up with creative alternatives that might better meet an individual’s need. More exploration of potential variations to the standard shared living model might net some wonderful results in keeping with CLBC’s goal to “promote innovation and resiliency”. Additionally, as part of communication to the regions, it will be prudent in the long term to make sure that the focus on shared living is tempered with CLBC’s other strategic goal to ‘explore options for better serving people with multiple, complex support requirements” (p23). Backtracking when the shared living arrangement breaks down due to complexity of needs can not only be financially costly but have a major impact on the health and safety of all involved.

2. We recommend that CLBC review and increase funding levels for shared living to

support this model as a viable and long term residential option for individuals across the life span and varying needs

Problem Statement Monthly Rates for Shared Living/Home Share Providers: It appears, based on feedback from agencies across the province, there are gaps in the factors that are considered when assigning a rate or level of funding for an individual including:

The cost of living in the community e.g. housing prices of each individual community The commitment required from providers – some individuals may have multiple services

that help offset some of the demands on a provider’s time while others may have no additional services and are therefore more reliant on the provider for all supports

No consistency or built in capacity to factor in the costs of, or provide recognition for, an investment in renovations to the provider’s home, equipment (e.g. lifts, modified


vehicles, etc.) or to make purchases to support mobility. Differences in funding and resources for youth transitioning from foster care to home

share into adult services. The additional role the provider may need to play when the family of an individual in a

placement has significant needs or demands. Rationale Statement Shared Living/Home Share Providers are pivotal to the success of each placement and need to be compensated fairly for their efforts to ensure they feel adequately recognized and consequently committed for the long term when they may be called upon to weather challenges in the placement. Each placement is unique and requires a careful assessment to fully understand the level of support needed. It is clear from the feedback agencies have received from providers, more factors need to be considered when determining the rate of payment than are currently considered in the GSA. There also needs to be capacity to reassess if the predicted support needs are dramatically different from those that emerge once the placement ‘honeymoon’ period is over. Additionally, providers need to have some form of compensation for the renovations, equipment or additional features they put in place to meet the identified needs of an individual. While this could be sourced from outside the base funding, it needs to be factored into the costing formula so that these features are noted and recognized. 3. We recommend that CLBC review the Guide to Support Allocation Tool to ensure it is

a valid and reliable tool for assessing the ‘real’ costs of shared living and that they train and monitor their staff across the region so the tool is applied consistently and transparently.

Problem Statement As noted above, there are a variety of factors that have not been included in the GSA that have significant impact on the demands placed on providers including:

if the individual’s family is challenging to support; if there is no natural respite options; if the provider has to frequently transport the individual or provide other services; If no other services are in place (e.g. day support, employment, etc).

Additionally,

the GSA assessment is subjective and can change across facilitators/analysts motivation to reassess is often influenced by whether there will be savings or a request

for more funding. Many agencies note that reassessments are typically only initiated as a cost savings measure.

there is no built in, regular review in place to identify an individuals changing needs. there's typically no transparency about how funding decisions are made, and no process

to appeal decisions. the tool does not address the significant time a coordinator can spend on recruitment,

screening and matching for each individual before the service begins. Rationale Statement Without a clear process in place that families, individuals, potential Shared Living/Home Share providers, and agencies can trust to accurately reflect the support level required, many individuals are steering clear of this residential option. They need to know that adequate support will be in place and adequate compensation provided. Recruitment of new Shared Living/Home


Shared Living/Home Share Outcome #3

Shared Living Providers are supported effectively and monitored consistently to ensure high quality shared living experiences.

Share providers is challenging in many communities. Recruitment efforts can be further hampered when unrealistic expectations are placed on potential providers without adequate compensation. Additionally, placement turnover rises when providers don’t feel they can manage within the parameters of the funding available. It is important, therefore, to ensure the assessment tools used to determine funding levels are accurate and are reviewed regularly. This practice ensures providers get off to a good start with individuals with whom they will be sharing their lives. They also know they can count on a review to either reduce if things are going well or access additional supports for an individual if needs are higher than anticipated.

4. We recommend that CLBC work with service providers to ensure that adequate

resources are in place to support Shared Living/Home Share providers. Problem Statement: The complexity of many individuals steered towards shared living means providers need access an array of additional supports to sustain long term placements. These supports may include but are not limited to emergency beds when a Home Share breaks down, mental health supports, nursing services, occupational therapy, behavioural supports, etc. Providers are often faced with a lack of emergency beds and minimal resources for mental health supports including long waitlists for services from DDMHS, leaving them high and dry and vulnerable to burn out and/or termination of their placement. Additionally, the shift to engaging individuals in generic activities means many individuals do not have access to 1:1 skills development or community integration supports that leave providers with the sole responsibility of connecting individuals in community, a task many find daunting. Rationale Statement: Agencies delivering Shared Living/Home Share services witness many challenges among shared living providers that can lead to burn out and placement breakdown especially among those serving individuals with more complex needs. As the primary contact for these providers, agencies spend considerable time listening to providers vent, providing tips and resources, researching alternative resources, advocating for additional supports both through CLBC and the broader community, and organizing training and supports for their providers. To help agencies better support their providers, we encourage CLBC to further develop resources and supports to provide much needed strategies and direction when providing shared living options for individuals with more complex needs.


5. We recommend that CLBC review their practices within each region to better support

agencies who have taken on the role of providing Shared Living/Home Share services Problem Statement It has been noted previously that local CLBC practices often do not match standards that have been set provincially. Many agencies reported feeling challenged to maintain provincial standards because of these practices:

The pressure to develop placements quickly because of sudden urgency of need (often prompted by a placement breakdown that could have been averted with adequate supports) While there are a myriad of reasons for this need for a quick turnaround, history demonstrates that “Quick placements lead to quick breakdown”.

Micro-management of Agency Shared Living/Home Share Coordinators by CLBC Managers in an attempt to reduce coordination rates leads to role confusion and over or under monitoring of shared living providers and the subsequent impact on these providers and the services they provide.

Lack of support for changing circumstances including the provision for palliative care, and end of life care needs within the shared living situationproviders who want to make this possible are not necessarily given the supports they need or supported by CLBC in these efforts.

Confusion around the protection of consumer/contractor rights to confidentiality versus sharing of critical information to protect others leaves persons served and/or shared living providers and their families vulnerable to unsafe, possibly abusive situations

Rationale Statement CLBC has identified a Human Resources Strategy as part of their Strategic Plan. We encourage them to take action as outlined to have “consistent engagement with stakeholder groups” (p. 25) including Host Agencies and Shared Living/Home Share Providers to understand their experiences and their need for support consistent with the Shared Living (Home Share) standards. We recognize that there are many competing interests at play and that there are no simple solutions. However, it is critical to the success and long term sustainability of this program that that true collaboration with partners delivering these services be maintained as a consistent hallmark of local CLBC practice. Additionally, it is important for CLBC to review and monitor their practices regarding palliative care, informed consent processes, and end of life care needs.

Regular, Intentional Support is a Predictor of Successful Outcomes “In general, it was reported that home sharing providers, individuals with disabilities and their families, community agencies and community allies across regions experience more satisfying outcomes, not only when standards are met or exceeded, but when regular and intentional support is provided to one another. Creating opportunities to discuss personal values and practices coupled with exchange of practical information keeps communication open and solves problems. There is a belief that sharing diverse home share experiences and celebrating successes matter. Greater attention to facilitating mutual support is thought to be a predictor of better of outcomes for individuals. Agency coordinators, CLBC home share leads and home sharing providers who are more responsive will seek ways to address life-changing events, often averting crises that may arise because of conflict, changing preferences, and age related health complications” CLBC Home Share Service Review (Hughson & Brown, Inc., October 2013, p.47.


Employment This section of our position paper was developed by the CEO Network Employment working group representing 25 BC service providers. This group drew their feedback from service providers delivering employment services across the province. While a number of these service providers were providing employment services through an employment contract with CLBC, many were piecing together employment programming through community inclusion or other funding sources both within and outside of CLBC. We were pleased to get this cross-section of service providers to help inform our review and subsequent recommendations. To guide their review, the Employment working group used a survey process asking questions of member organizations about their work in supporting community based, paid employment for person served. Survey results are based on feedback from 39 member agencies of the CEO network. Additionally, the working group used the following resources to inform their review and recommendations:

Labour Market Opinions: Career Practitioners (BC Labour Market Report January 2010) Supported Employment National Vocational Counselor Pay Scale-2014

Background

In recent years, CLBC has been committed to aligning services to an employment first focus. As outlined in their January 2015 review and update - CLBC’s Strategic Plan 2012-16, the Community Action Employment Plan launched in March 2013 is a key pillar. Many of the member agencies of the CEO Network have been influential contributors to this plan and are excited to see the progress being made across the province in “increasing the number of individuals who pursue work and in improving our effectiveness in helping people find and keep work”( CLBC’s Strategic Plan 2012-16, p.17). These are exciting times in BC and we are pleased to be part of the momentum that is building. As agencies involved in direct service delivery, we are very actively engaged in the day to day practicalities of moving this agenda forward and want to work collaboratively with CLBC to review and address some of the issues we see arising across the field that are impeding the effectiveness of local efforts. These include issues related to:

adequate compensation and resultant staff turnover, training gaps/needs to address the level of workforce adjustment underway, outdated funding formulas that don’t take into account the multi-level work involved, and data collection systems that don’t reflect the full breadth of the employment services

being provided We know that CLBC, through its Community Action Employment Plan and other strategic initiatives, is committed to making employment services innovative, sustainable, resilient, and above all, successful in generating employment outcomes. Our working group is pleased to contribute to this vision by sharing these recommendations.


Employment Outcome #1

All staff who are providing employment services have appropriate and fair wages regardless of the service category within which they work.


1. We recommend that CLBC revise their funding guidelines to ensure appropriate and fair funding of wages for all employees who deliver employment services as part of their work in any of the following services: Employment Services, Community Inclusion Services and Advancing New Support Options.

Problem Statement: Wage Categories vs. Actual Job Duties: Front line employees across the province who work for a range of service agencies/providers (private, not for profit, union, non-unionized) perform same or similar job duties in relation to Supported Employment. However, their wages do not reflect these duties. As an example, employees who typically work in a Community Inclusion program have been expected to provide employment services for those people they support however earn a lesser amount than employees doing the same work who are classified as

•Wages reflect the work performed

•Staff feel recognized and valued for their work

All staff who are providing employment services have appropriate and fair wages regardless of the service category within

which they work.

•Training is comprehensive and based on best practice

•CLBC seeks federal support to address this widespread need for workforce adjustment

All staff delivering employment services have the requisite training to do this

work to best practice standards in the field of supported employment.

•The Funding Guide Template is adjusted to reflect the multilevel focus of the work and the real costs involved

•Service providers do not have to subsidize services in order to sustain them

Service providers across the province have the resources and capacity to

support successful employment outcomes

•Service providers are involved in the design of the data tracking system

•Adequate support/funding is provided to meet reporting requirements

Employment statistics are readily accessible and reflect efforts across all

programs and services providing employment supports



All staff delivering employment services have the requisite training to do this work to best practice standards in the field of supported employment.

Vocational Counsellors falling in Grid 11 of the Collective Agreement between CSSEA and CSSBA. Additionally, there is also an issue with employment counsellors in other sectors earning higher wages for the same work as our Grid Level 11 Vocational Counsellors. This fact creates a problem with recruitment and high turnover where agencies in our sector become the training ground. When staff are up to speed they leave to work elsewhere for more money Rationale: If CLBC is considering the new Advancing New Support Options (ANSO) as a service type it will be crucial that the wage and job duties be articulated and that disparities be addressed. Increased employee retention can be more readily achieved if employees who have developed their skills and competencies are paid fairly and equitably in comparison to others doing the same work. It is believed that if Service Providers had a lower staff turnover among their skilled staff, there would be a higher success rate in employment outcomes.

2. We recommend that CLBC provide appropriate funding to cover the costs of training employees to deliver supported employment services. It is suggested that CLBC negotiate a federal workforce adjustment agreement to support this critical transition in employee competencies.

Problem Statement: Qualifications and Training: Since the shift to an Employment First Model of service delivery for individuals with developmental disabilities, there has been an expectation that all employees engage in supported employment activities with the individuals they support, although most employees within the sector were not hired with the appropriate credentials to do this type of work. At the same time, there has been a lack of accessible, comprehensive, occupational training across the province, for staff in the sector to upgrade their skills to meet these new service expectations. This is a sector issue that requires extensive workforce adjustment. While we are seeing great strides in training development supported by both government and service providers across the province to address this competency gap, we know from our research that there are still very few employees per service provider who are qualified to fully do the work. Capacity among agencies to train staff especially with the high levels of turnover in the field has been cited as one of the major factors impacting this competency gap. Additionally, it has been noted that much of the training that has been has been done, has been funded internally within agencies with limited resources (funded through other sources than government) making it challenging to provide comprehensive training and follow up support for staff who are getting started in this new direction. These circumstances feed into a belief that



Service providers across the province have the resources and capacity to support successful employment outcomes

agency employees are reluctant or resistant to change when, in fact, the lack of adequate resourcing to address the workforce adjustments at play appear to be the greater issue. Rationale: The adoption of an Employment First focus in BC is forcing a systems change that has high demands on the workforce to extend employment services to individuals with a broad range of support needs who traditionally were not considered ‘job ready’. While this expansion is exciting and timely, to be successfully implemented, employees need to be well equipped to do this work. In order to ensure effective and appropriate Supported Employment services that result in successful employment outcomes for individuals with developmental disabilities, including those with more complex support needs, staff need to have comprehensive training. Staff must be able to work effectively on multiple levels interacting not only with persons served and their families but also with the business community and within specific worksites adapting to a range of different workplace cultures. This work calls for high levels of skills not only to support specific individuals in finding work but also to foster community ‘buy in’ and commitment. Staff skill sets need to reflect these multiple demands. All employees in the province who are doing supported employment work should have adequate training and qualifications to be effective. To address the issue of trained staff leaving for higher levels of pay in other sectors, CLBC could support some training initiatives that are tied to employee retention incentives. Exploring options with service providers might help to build capacity for training and worker retention.

3. We recommend that CLBC adjust and update the Funding Guide Template to reflect the real costs of delivering supported employment services. We further recommend that employment services be funded to the same level regardless of the service stream within which they are delivered, Employment Services, Community Inclusion Services and/or Advancing New Support Options.

Problem Statement: Costs Associated with Supported Employment: There are unique and often higher costs associated with the effective delivery of Supported Employment services many of which are not reflected in the Funding Guide Template (FGT) currently used by CLBC when contracting for services. These costs are not the same as the costs to do Community Inclusion work and consequently aren’t accounted for in many contracts. The BCCEO Network Employment Survey identified the following areas as costs that are greater as a result of this work:

Transportation Expenses- travelling to neighbourhoods and communities where people live to conduct discovery, work on job development, and provide on the job supports

Technology (cellular phones/computers) – ensuring availability and responsiveness to employers and workers to address any issues; having access to laptops or computers to deal with the business interactions professionally i.e. developing job proposals, staying


in contact with and making new contacts with employers and the business community, developing marketing materials (for individual job seekers and the program), writing reports, tracking results

Memberships and Professional Dues – having a presence as members of the Chamber and other business/employer associations as well as staying connected with professional associations for employment practitioners

Furthermore, as noted above, supported employment requires multi-level work in community that is critical to the development of long term, successful, community based employment placements and goes above and beyond direct service to persons served. Of equal importance, direct services need to be assessed differently. One to one staff time needs to be dedicated to intensive community development and marketing work both during the development phase of all new jobs and in the orientation and maintenance support phase to ensure adequate worker preparation and follow up support for job retention. It is well known in this work that high intensity contact is necessary and that employment workers need to have a range of resources available to them to support job placements successfully in the initial stages. Sourcing resources, helping think through job accommodations, building natural supports in workplaces all take time that is tied to but not necessarily direct support. As part of this discussion, it is important to note that at least half of the organizations surveyed by the BCCEO Network indicated they were subsidizing employment services for the people in their services so they could access supported employment and/or so agencies could ensure the success of their services. Funding they receive from CLBC does not cover their delivery costs. While we recognize that, at times, services are enhanced by fundraising activities or grant applications, this practice is not a reliable or dependable source for sustainability and staff retention. Employment services should be funded and not seen as a charity. Fundraising money generated by Service Providers is needed in so many areas that it cannot be seen as an ongoing resource to achieve the Employment Outcomes as identified in the provincial Community Action Employment Plan. Rationale Statement: It is evident from the response to our survey and the results coming out of the Community Action Employment Plan that service providers across the province are moving forward with an employment first agenda and working hard to develop their programming. We believe that it is important during this transition phase and going forward that we have a strong, adequately resourced system in place that can help to build community capacity and support individuals who are venturing into the job market to have successful, long term attachment to the labour market. Sustainability is a key ingredient for success.

It is important to note

that at least half of the

service providers surveyed

indicated they were

subsidizing employment

services for the people in

their services.



Employment statistics will be readily accessible and will reflect efforts across all programs and services providing employment supports

4. We recommend that CLBC work collaboratively with service providers to develop a user friendly reporting tool that can be consistently applied across all services. Additionally, we recommend that CLBC provide appropriate administration funding to pay for these reporting costs.

Problem Statement: Data Collection & Periodic Reporting: It has been difficult for CLBC to be fully advised of Supported Employment statistics in British Columbia. This is partially due to the fact that many people who receive services through CLBC are achieving employment outcomes through non-employment programs/services (Community Inclusion, for example). Currently the CLBC Statistics platform is working in terms of the entry of data for Employment Contracts. However Service Providers report that the communication around submission guidelines and timelines has been poor and confusing. With the creation of the Advancing New Support Options, there will be a need to find a reporting system that is user friendly, not time consuming, purposeful, and useful, and does not interfere with the flexibility that is required in managing a contract internally by Service Providers. Rationale Statement: We recognize that data collection systems are powerful tools that can help guide our efforts by highlighting our successes and pinpointing areas where we may need to rework or improve our efforts. It is critical to all of us that we have good data. We support CLBC in their efforts to design a workable system to monitor program effectiveness. However, we feel it is imperative that the sector be involved in its design. We know that what we track starts to shape our efforts and we want to be sure we are paying attention to and gathering good data that can inform and guide our work. We also need to be sure time spent in tracking is valued time that does not detract from the focus of our work.


Summary and Next Steps This paper represents the findings of three working groups of the CEO Network who delved into their respective program areas including Supported Living, Shared Living/Home Share, and Employment. While each group worked independently gathering and analysing data from service providers across the province and from supplementary resources, the issue regarding the long term sustainability of these services arose as a top priority for all of the groups. Of the array of options outlined in CLBC’s catalogue of services, these 3 program areas stand out not only as some of the most cost effective and flexible options available, but also as services that have the flexibility to honour people’s choices in lifestyles and levels of independence. We believe it is essential that these services get the attention and investment of resources needed to sustain them as viable options so that they can help lead the province in achieving good outcomes for all. In analyzing the data and insights we gathered, we reflected carefully on CLBC’s strategic directions to be sure we were not working at cross-purposes but aligning with and helping to forward the Goals and Action Steps identified in the January 2015 review and update CLBC’s Strategic Plan 2012-16. As a network, we represent 129 member agencies that have strong roots in our respective communities across the province and a commitment to quality services and supports. We are invested in our work and want to work collaboratively with CLBC. We hope that this position paper can be the starting place for continued work with CLBC to review and refine these important services outlined here so that they can truly deliver the vision we all share of supporting individuals and families to achieve “good lives in welcoming communities”.

Achieving Sustainability, Innovation and Resilience ...bcceonetwork.ca/WP/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CEO-Network-Pos… · Achieving Sustainability, Innovation and Resilience Feedback

Documents